Rename the Armenians to the Cilicians

The current Armenians don’t represent actual Armenia very well. They mostly represent Cilician Armenia which is…in Anatolia. Pretty lame. On top of that, they’re a naval civilization, which is completely nonsensical, as Cilicia never had a navy. They don’t have good cavalry or siege, which is insulting, as those are the two things they were historically good at. The whole civilization is just a mess.

I suggest it be renamed to the Cilicians, so it explicitly represents them, and then the name “Armenians” can be reserved for specifically Armenia itself, which would represent Bagratid Armenia.

The new Armenians would be properly focused on heavy cavalry and siege, and would have a new unique castle based on Amberd. They would take the old Wonder, so the new Cilician Wonder would be based on the St. Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral in Antelias, Lebanon, which can be seen here.

This way, we could “quarantine” the historically inaccurate Armenians to a separate civ that no longer represents them, while creating a new, much more accurate civ for Armenia proper.


Yeah already proposed and not much to add.

And the civ icon will need to change too to Rubenid one instead of the current Bagratid.

1 Like

why even post this? what do you think are the chances there is going to be a complete redesign + renaming of a civ only a few months after launch?


The chances aren’t very good now, but they could always do it down the road.

This is easily the worst DLC for the game ever created (aside from arguably RoR), because of how unnecessarily historically inaccurate and gimmicky the civs are. There isn’t even a new architecture set, which is just lazy.

I would’ve never campaigned for the inclusion of the Georgians and Armenians if I had known this is how they’d turn out.

nah, flemish revolution + charged attacks is so much worse (I also don’t count RoR). the former should be removed form the game, and the latter doesn’t feel like aoe2

fix the monaspa, i can live with armor ignoring archers (even though i don’t like them) and slightly buff both civs so they can properly enter the meta. This DLC was by far the best balanced on release, had really fun campaigns and the civs work fine


To get a real Armenians civ.

1 Like

If you want a Caucasian civ, it’s maybe possible to play Georgians and pretend it’s Armenia;) I understand the devs choice for gameplay perspective. It could be renamed Little Armenia haha
Cilician Armenia do have links to navy, such as wood, transportation contracts with Christians as well as pirates activities.


I would not really call removing the bug fixing the Monaspa as much as simply removing a bug. Giving them Atonement would help them a lot as a defensive civilization. I know that the Koreans have wretched Monks, but the Georgians should not. I get that they have a killer Scoutline, but they really pay for it with their Archery Range upgrades.

Surely a Transport Ship bonus would’ve been better, then. Cilicia itself didn’t have an organized navy.

Yeah, but that’s way before the AoE2 timeline.

1 Like

No we dont need two diferent Armenians civs lol. Yes the devs have done some pretty poor designs for a lot of civs, who represent historically a very specific period in not even a very historical manner, or to distinguish from other civs (which is ironic since at the same time they added quite a few civs which are very similar to each other like Burgundians and Sicilians who feel like a gimmickier Franks, Bulgarians who are a more interesting Slavs and Gurjaras who are similar-ish to Hindustanis)

But we gotta live with it. I hope the Armenians get a more open siege and cav tech tree but I think thats as much as you should hope for realistically. I doubty they are reworking the infantry or naval focus as its quite important for the current design

Also, Cicilian Armenians were known for their siege and cavalry too.


How Sicilians is a gimmickier Franks?

Also it is Cilician not

Why not?

We have two different Hungarians = Magyars and Huns
We have three different Italians = Italians and Romans and Sicilians
We have two different Germans = Goths and Teutons
We have two different French = Franks and Burgundians

Bagratid Armenia (Caucasus) and Rubenid Armenia (Cilicia) are as different as Burgundians and Franks pair. They belong to different times and belong to different areas.


Huns lived in Hungary, but they aren’t Hungarian.
Romans lived in Italy but they aren’t Italian.

Goths are Germanic, like AngloSaxons, Vikings and Franks, but they aren’t Germans.

Franks represent both the unified Frankish kingdom/empire and the Western Frankish Kingdom. Teutons represent the Eastern Frankish Empire. Burgundians represent the Burgundian kingdom in all its incarnations

In any case, we do have both Eastern and Western Roman empires


Why you talked about everyone but not Armenians and their two variants? Because that is the main point of this discussion.

You mentioned both Armenians, separated by time and place. I mentioned Franks separated by time and place and Romans separated by time and place


I’m not sure If I want a civ specificly for Armenian Cilicia.

I’d only ask for a better cav tech tree. I’d be fine with them getting Plate Barding armor. FU cavalier is enough for me.


Cilician not Cicilian

Armenians on the Caucasus definitely have had much more Horse supplies than Cilician. The area around Caspian sea is a hotspot for horses.

1 Like

Yeah if those separations based on time and place are different civs then why not two Armenians.

The current Armenians don’t represent actual Armenia very well. They mostly represent Cilician Armenia which is…in Anatolia. Pretty lame. On top of that, they’re a naval civilization, which is completely nonsensical, as Cilicia never had a navy.

Why are Cicilians not actual Armenians? Because the Turk did a Genozid to them? Many Armenians lived in Anatolia before the first World War. Modern borders don’t matter for AoE2.